Note: This article does not argue whether an absolute truth exists. Instead, it focuses on whether we, as humans, can attain that absolute truth (if it exists).
The Problem of Arguments and Assumptions
One of the main challenges in reaching absolute truth lies in the limitations of our arguments and presuppositions. Many arguments used to support ideas or concepts are built on premises that are not well-established. These shaky premises often lead to flawed conclusions. When someone presents an argument for a concept, they rely on assumptions that are either unproven or based on empirical data that may later be disproven by new findings. Furthermore, such arguments often lack sufficient information to justify their conclusions.
Example: The Cosmological Argument for God
Consider the following commonly cited argument for the existence of God:
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who, without the universe, is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.
5. Therefore, such a Creator exists.
This argument presupposes several assumptions. For instance, take the first premise: "Everything that begins to exist has a cause." This statement has not been definitively proven. It is based on empirical observations—things we see around us seem to have causes, so we generalize this principle. However, recent discoveries in quantum mechanics challenge this premise. Certain virtual particles appear to arise spontaneously, without a discernible cause, existing briefly before disappearing.
Why Proving Everything from Scratch is Impossible
To know the absolute truth, we would need to prove everything from the ground up. Unfortunately, this is either impossible or beyond human capability.
Descartes’ Attempt at Foundational Proof
René Descartes famously attempted to start from scratch with his philosophy. His approach began with radical doubt—questioning the existence of everything, including his own existence. However, he realized he could not doubt his own existence, as the act of doubting required a thinker. Thus, he concluded, "I think, therefore I am" (Cogito, ergo sum).
Yet, this leads to further questions: While Descartes established the existence of his mind and consciousness, can we prove that these require a physical body? If we doubt everything, why not doubt the idea that consciousness needs a physical form?
(Note that I have assumed that nothingness cannot think. For thinking to occur, a mind and consciousness are required. However, this assumption can also be questioned. That said, let us not delve this far. )
Limitations of the Senses
Some might argue that our senses (sight, touch, smell, etc.) provide evidence of the physical world and our bodies. However, our senses are unreliable. For instance, the sky appears blue, but it does not have a color; what we perceive as "blue" is simply the interpretation of certain electromagnetic wavelengths by our brain.
Neuroscience shows that the brain filters and shapes sensory information, while psychology demonstrates how cognitive biases alter perception. This means we cannot rely on our senses to prove the existence of the external world if we start from scratch.
Flaws in Descartes’ Argument for God
Descartes also provided an argument for God’s existence, summarized informally as follows:
1. I have an idea of God as a perfect, infinite, and all-powerful being.
2. The cause of an idea must have at least as much reality as the idea itself.
3. As a finite, imperfect being, I cannot be the source of the idea of a perfect, infinite being.
4. Therefore, the idea must have come from something external to me that possesses the qualities of perfection and infinity.
5. The only being that matches this description is God.
6. Therefore, God must exist.
The flaw lies in premise 3, where Descartes claims that a finite, imperfect being cannot generate the idea of a perfect, infinite being. This assertion overlooks the human capacity for imagination.
Insights from Neuroscience and Psychology
Neuroscience reveals that the brain's mechanisms, such as pattern recognition and abstraction, enable humans to construct complex ideas from simpler experiences. Psychology supports this, showing that humans can create ideals and extrapolate concepts beyond their immediate reality. Thus, the idea of a perfect being could be a product of human imagination rather than evidence of an external divine source.
By failing to consider these psychological and neurological insights, Descartes’ argument relies on incomplete information, leading to an incorrect conclusion.
Conclusion
We exist on a foundation of assumptions, many of which are unproven or incomplete. To attain absolute truth, every premise must be firmly established. However, proving everything from scratch is either impossible or beyond our current capabilities. Thus, while the pursuit of absolute truth may be noble, it appears to remain unattainable.
The argument can be summarized in informal logic as follows:
To attain absolute truth, one must possess complete certainty about everything, and all premises must be well-established. However, this goal is unattainable for two primary reasons:
1. Proving everything from scratch is impossible because any logical system requires foundational assumptions to begin with; it is not feasible to validate every proposition without prior premises.
2. Reliance on sensory perception for acquiring knowledge is inherently unreliable, as our senses are susceptible to error and can mislead us.
Therefore, it is impossible to attain absolute truth.
Why We Can't Reach Absolute Truth